PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay should be condoned. 5. Consequent upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and after due consideration of the submission of the assessee, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs.Nil after allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act for all the subject assessment years. Copy of the order dated

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SAURAV AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), , CUTTACK vs. SMT. SHASHI KALA AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SMT. SHASHI KALA AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld SR DR that there was only a single issue involved in all the appeals filed by the revenue, which was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

condone the delay of 56 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Shri S.K.Mohapatra, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue and Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. P a g e 4 | 13 ITA No. 11 /CTK/2022 C.O.No.02/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 8. In respect of Ground No.1

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the assessee purchased shares of Panchshul Marketing Ltd. from Overflow Merchyandise Pvt. Ltd. via a 2 SEBI-registered stockbroker and made payment through an account payee cheque. It was the submission that

KELLA TRADING COMPANY (HUF),KORAPUT vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kella Kella Trading Trading Company Company Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, (Huf), Kella Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 764001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aamhk 1172 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar P.C.Sethi, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 11/2022 O R D E R

condone the delay of 113 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee, an HUF had filed its return of income by disclosing the long term capital gains

LAXMINARAYAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.521 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxminarayan Das Laxminarayan Das Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Plot No.575-C, C, 3(3), Bhubaneswar Hubaneswar Behera Sahi Nayapali Bhubaneswar, 751012 , 751012 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpd 0726 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Misahra & B.N.Behera B.N.Behera, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhuban Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10236/2018-19 19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.N.Behera B.N.Behera & P.K.Mishra, Ld Ars Appeared For Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

long term capital gain, without examining the explanation offered and evidences adduced by the Appellant during course of assessment proceeding. The impugned disallowance of exemption/deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act and addition of the same to the total income of the Appellant, being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be deleted in the interest

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar u/s 263 of the LT. Act, 1961 is excessive, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That

ASHOAK ACHARYA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Acharya, Irc Village, Ashok Acharya, Irc Village, Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Adcpa 6490 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Diganta Dash, Dash, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /05/2024

delay of 149 days in filing the appeal is condoned and disposed off on merits. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assesse is an individual who had derived long term capital gain

ABANI PATTANAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

delay of 218 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR at the time of hearing that the assessee has raised the following three grounds :- i) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the amount of Rs.2,58,160/- representing BWSSB deposit and KPTCL charges, totalling to Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned.\nId. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay.\nConsidering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone\nthe delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n3. As the facts and circumstances are similar in ITA Nos. 179 &\n181/CTK/2020, hence, for brevity we will take